Question: We are running some professional development sessions on argumentative writing in middle school and have been discussing the differences between “argument” and “persuasion.” We currently have a unit in our curriculum units around persuasive writing and have been talking about claims and proof vs. emotional appeal. We were wondering your thoughts on the subject as we transition to the Common Core.
It’s a “both/and” situation. Successful persuasion relies both upon the argument-evidence formula of argumentative writing and also the emotional appeal of persuasive writing.
At the argumentative level, students must be able to evaluate whether or not a claim (such as a newspaper headline) is supported by evidence. IT’s the classic “make an argument, break an argument” critical thinking challenge, and most daily newspapers and web sites offer real-world examples for teachers to use. It’s useful when teachers help students take that material and separate it out into “claims”, “arguments” and “evidence.” Then they can evaluate competing claims, arguments, and evidence.
However, evidentiary claims are not always the end of the argument. On some topics, such as the death penalty or childhood vaccinations, the statistics alone do not resolve the argument. If the death penalty is, overall, administered in a statistically accurate method most of the time, how do we deal with the fact that some innocent people are executed? Is it like collateral damage in war? Similarly, we value the freedom of parents to make health decisions for their kids, but what about when they expose other innocent children to deadly risks? Quantitative reasoning only helps us so far in these debates – we need both the mathematical and the emotional to help us sort them out.
I’m afraid that I haven’t made this much easier for you and your students, but in general, I think we need to challenge them much beyond the “save the whales” arguments on one side or the “save the dollars” on the other side. Policy (and humanity) depends upon both quantitative and qualitative reasoning.
Literacy is exploding with complexity and opportunities! Today’s literacy needs, in conjunction with expectations in the Common Core State Standards, call for explicit and direct literacy instruction. In particular, Disciplinary Literacy instruction increases students’ comprehension of increasing levels of complex text, as demanded in Standard 10. This type of instruction may represent a significant change for English Language Arts teachers and teachers in different disciplines, as indicated in Achieve’s, On the Road to Implementation, (2010).
One question that has arisen is how Disciplinary Literacy instruction coexists with Reading Across the Content strategies. What Disciplinary Literacy experts and studies have disclosed is the lack of generalizability of strategies. That is, secondary students require discipline-specific instructional support as text complexity increases, as noted in the groundbreaking work by experts including the Shanahans: “In literacy development, progression to higher levels in the pyramid means learning more sophisticated but less generalizable skills and routines.” This passage continues, “By the time adolescent students are being challenged by disciplinary texts, literacy instruction often had evaporated altogether or has degenerated into a reiteration of general reading strategies" (Harvard Ed. Review, 2008). As text complexity increases at the secondary level, disciplines requires specific instruction that builds upon strategies provided previously to fully comprehend increasing levels of complex texts. Intermediate students may also benefit from this type of explicit instruction as noted in the Carnegie Final Report, “The skills that students learn up until fourth grade are absolutely critical to later success, but they are simply not enough. Literacy demands change drastically in grades 4-12.” Both the textual demands, and the types of texts used, vary widely across different content areas. “Each content area in middle and high school demands a different approach to reading, writing, and thinking. Texts read in history class are different from those read in biology, which in turn are substantially different from novels, poems, or essays read in ELA” (Carnegie, 2010).
It is important for literacy concepts to coexist and build upon current practices for the secondary levels. The Leadership & Learning Center’s Disciplinary Literacy: Redefining Deep Understanding and Leadership for the 21st Century (Piercy and Piercy, 2011) and onsite seminar are designed to provide guidance and support to both English Language Arts teachers and teachers in different disciplines for implementation of the Common Core State Standards. Interactive instructional models and guidance in selecting complex texts, aligned with the cognitive demand within the Common Core State Standards’ Learning Progressions, as described in Larry Ainsworth’s, Rigorous Curriculum Design, are included. Through collaboration between teachers in different disciplines, students will be able to access higher levels of complex texts with the support of discipline-specific instruction and Standard 1’s text-dependent questioning, to enhance deeper understanding. Maryann Wiggs and I are providing models of ELA instruction described in this Blog during the Common Core Tour. Please consider joining us when the Tour arrives near you!
The ELA Common Core State Standards provide enormous opportunities for all students while creating challenges for instruction. With Standard 10 establishing the high expectation that all students read and understand complex text, the key word receiving much attention is, “all.” Yes, the expectation is for every student to independently read complex texts with understanding from Grade 2 through Grade 11 and into College and Careers. Currently, the most frequently asked questions revolve around Standard 10. These questions include, “How can I provide instruction to support my students’ capacity to read complex text?”Also, “Specifically, how can I support my students, who entered my classroom not reading on their enrolled grade level, to read such difficult texts in my content area, (including History/Social Studies, Science/Technical Subjects, Mathematics, and English Language Arts?”
In addition to providing student access to complex text by providing text-dependent, discipline-specific questions, as described in an earlier blog, guiding students to improve their close reading of text increases their understanding of complex text. Questions which focus directly on the text require students to practice close reading.
What is Close Reading?
Close Reading is keeping your eyes on the text to read the content very carefully, paying attention to details. Being quite different from a summary or the big idea, close reading requires active thinking and analyzing of the content to make decisions. You can see how text-dependent, discipline-specific questions support the need for students’ to incorporate close reading of their text because they must cite evidence directly from the text. This is a skill that will remain one of the students’ most practical literacy skills throughout their college and careers. Few disciplines do not benefit from students’ close reading to achieve understanding. The majority of career paths depend on close reading to remain current in the particular field. For this reason, close reading is a skill that supports students’ comprehension in different disciplines. Elementary, Middle, and High School students benefit from the close reading of complex texts in different content areas. If you would like models of complex text instruction which include close reading for elementary, middle, and high school, as required in Standard 10, join Maryann Wiggs and me for our literacy sessions on these topics during the Common Core Tour scheduled throughout the year.
Among the highest priorities of the Common Core State Standards is that students must read texts closely and acquire knowledge.
At each grade level, 80 to 90 percent of the Reading standards require text-dependent analysis. Questions that expect student responses to be text-dependent and discipline-specific require students to demonstrate that they understand the text details and can provide accurate evidence.
Questions that are text-dependent can only be answered correctly by close reading of the text. The evidence in the response comes directly from the text and does not depend on additional information from other sources. Although there is an important role for questions requiring a synthesis of information from a variety of sources, text-dependent questions assure knowledge from a specific text is clearly understood prior to leaping into synthesizing. This level of scrutiny of text increases expectations for accuracy for future thinking, which may include synthesizing, analyzing, and creating. It builds the critical foundation of knowledge needed for comprehending texts used in higher grade levels. Text-dependent questions are not the same as recall questions. They require understanding that extends beyond recalling basic facts. The use of inference is an important skill for close reading. Consider which of the following questions requires students to read text closely for text specific information:
How did Frederick Douglass’ ability to read contribute to his emotional struggle for freedom? Cite examples from the text to support your answer.
In what ways does America represent the hope for freedom that lived in the heart of Frederick Douglass? Although question “b” would generate a rich conversation, the open-ended nature of this question does not require students to demonstrate specific text-dependent knowledge.
Providing a set of sequenced questions is supportive in guiding students’ focus through the text. This set of questions begins with a simple focus on word, details, and the logic presented in the author’s argument, then expands to the entire text. Such a set of questions guides students in making inferences based on the evidence in the text. After grounding their understanding of the specific text, students are better prepared to apply evaluation thinking and offer their sound opinions.
Having responded to a set of text-dependent questions in all disciplines, students increase their ability to read with understanding. Gradually, as their reading skills and foundation of knowledge increase, they expand their capacity to read increasing levels of complex text with understanding.
Standard 10 in the Common Core State Standards establishes the high expectation that students read and understand increasing levels of complex text. This expectation begins informally at Kindergarten and Grade 1 through exposure to books that generate thought and incorporate Tier 2 vocabulary. From Grade 2 through Grade 11-CCR, Standard 10 formally states high grade level expectations for independent reading of complex texts. Providing instruction, which includes text-dependent, discipline-specific questions, increases student capacity for close reading and provides access to increasing levels of complex text.
Additional suggestions for providing “student access” to more complex text will be coming in my next blog. I welcome and value your thoughts on this evolving topic!
Are you or the fellow science educators you support in need of effective instructional strategies and activities specifically related to teaching science? As one of the ‘newer’ topics on the accountability platform of NCLB, teaching science effectively requires a unique set of skills and practices for teachers to employ. As a former biology teacher and administrator, I found Five Easy Steps to a Balanced Science Program, by Lynn Howard, to be full of effective strategies for all educators, new and veteran. Lynn’s resource offers a multitude of interactive strategies for both the students and the teacher, as well as for administrators and instructional specialists to support and coach effective science classroom practice.
What also makes this series so effective and practical is Lynn’s examples which differentiate between lessons targeted for primary, upper elementary, middle school, and high school levels. While the framework is the same, these concrete examples allow for teachers and leaders to have specific models to build off of and implement in their classrooms. They are correlated with the American Association for the Advancement of Science process skills, which demonstrates the relevance and direct link to what teachers need to be successful in serving their students.
The five steps Lynn outlines in the series are:
Establishing an Effective Science Environment
Problem Solving
Conceptual Understanding (often missing in so many science classrooms—MY opinion)
Mastery of Science Information
Common Formative Assessments
These come together in a comprehensive but very manageable system for teachers and schools to employ that will provide the guidance and structure needed for quality teaching and learning in all science classrooms.
Teachers will enjoy incorporating them into their repertoire, leaders will have a guide for coaching and monitoring practice, and students will reap the rewards. The Five Easy Steps for a Balanced Science Program series will provide examples which are very user-friendly and reproducible. No school or district’s professional library would be complete without it!
